Author
Topic: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon? (Read 50276 times)

I have yet to get to those parks, but want to. However, I will be renting Canon's future big megapixel full frame when I go (and hopefully the upcoming Canon 14-24 lens)...probably next year. I can't imagine going to that much time and expense, to visit those parks with just a crop body as the main camera.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

When we visited Yellowstone and Glacier In 2011, I had just moved up to the DSLR world from a cheap P&S. I was very happy with my T2i, 18-55, 55-250 and rented 10-22. I have plenty of great shots from that vacation. Fortunately I shot in RAW, so have been able to re-PP them in LR4 which I didn't buy until last year, so they look much better now.

Of course I look forward to returning with my 6D and L lenses. I will add a 24-70 2.8 II shortly and am debating between buying a 16-35 II or do as you mentioned and just rent a 14-24. I really don't need anything wider than 24mm 98% of the time, so renting might be the way to go.

So what lenses then do you guys recommend? I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105.

Since you own the 17-70, you do have a standard zoom. The 24-105 does not make much sense at this point, and it is not even a good investment since you may buy it in an FF kit for much less.

So what lenses then do you guys recommend? I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105. Thanks in advance~

The EF-S 15-85mm is by far my favorite crop lens. I think it's a better lens than the 24-105. I mostly use it for landscapes and outdoor photography. If you need a faster, low light lens the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is also excellent. I own a 15-85 and have borrowed a 17-55 on several occasions.

I recommend the EF-S 10-22 for UWA. I rented one twice and was very happy with the results.

For longer range lenses, the EF 70-200's are outstanding, as is the 70-300L.

Posted by: cayenne« on: Today at 12:16:53 PM » Insert QuoteI was looking up the Sigma 120-300...when I look on Amazon, I see about 3x of them...from $2499 - $3500+....

How do I differentiate between the latest version of this and the older ones when shopping online?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne--------------------------------------------Well, it has better weather sealing and os system. If you look at fro's review comparing the two models, there are some critical updates. I want to get that but I don't earn money shooting so...

I always look for the very best deals on the lens that I KNOW I wouldn't regret purchasing. I even purchased a canon 20mm f2.8 for 80bucks! Haha! Recently sold that for 200 profit. Anyways, I have found most canon lenses to maintain their resale value fairly high. I have had a difficult time deciding on a UWA for my crop body.. I've been reading many reviews on the sigma 8-16, 12-24, 10-20, tamron 10-24, tokina 11-16, and the canon 10-22mm. Again, I tried the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 before returning it. I borrowed a canon 10-22mm a couple days after and for me, it really wasn't much of a comparison. Canon>sigma. I am biased towards canon from that instance as well as comparing the sigma 70-200 2.8 vs canon 70-200 f2.8 II. but considering budgets and my rather low budget, as much as I don't want to admit it, I am considering third party sources. Canon's prices are ridiculous.

So instead of the canon 15-85 the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? Hmm, I haven't even considered that one. I was thinking either the 15-85 or the 24-105. Haha! Biased, I know.

I was asking given the older and newer model of the 120-300...how do you tell which is the newer one? Is there a model number difference? Looking on amazon, I couldn't tell which was the newer and which was the older model....

I was asking given the older and newer model of the 120-300...how do you tell which is the newer one? Is there a model number difference? Looking on amazon, I couldn't tell which was the newer and which was the older model....

Thanx,

C

I looked at Amazon, the difference is very subtle, there is a obscure not saying a newer model is available, there is a part number 137101 on the new model, and, there is the price difference which someone might use to further baffle the issue if they list their old one for the same price as the new one.

Clearly, Sigma did not intend to emphasize the new model, or they would have named it differently. I think that's why many early reviewers do not believe it is optically different.

Sigma's MTF charts tend to support that view.

You can save $1000 and get the same optical performance if the charts are true. (They do have different URL's)

I think when you consider purchasing a lens, you think about not only image quality but also how reliable it is in terms of build quality. I've never owned any Sigma lenses, so I don't know, but maybe others can comment on how good Sigma's technical support and repair centers are?

People have opinions about Sigma/Tamron/Tokina; good and bad. I take photographs as a hobby and sometimes I get asked to do side jobs for money. At the end of the day, I am quite happy with my images. Again, if you are on a budget and looking to save some coin and know what focal length you need and why you need it, get the Sigma from a reputable dealer with a good return policy. If you are not happy with the lens, exchange it, if the next copy is not what you expected, get a refund and save for the Canon.

A camera is a tool, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. I am a customer, of Canon, not because they are better than the other tools, it comes down to how the camera fits in my hand. It is how intuitive the menu is to me. It is the results I get shooting it. I will one day get a Canon 24-70mm F2.8, but for now, I am very happy with the results I get using a Sigma lens on my Canon.

As far as I remember they were only thumbnails, and it only gave coverage of the whole sensor near 35mm. I guess a 1.3x crop would get full coverage around half way through the zoom.

Do bear in mind that this lens is not designed to cover a sensor larger than APS-C. I've tried out my 10-22 with the rear cap popped off on FF, and the corners aren't black from about 13mm onwards. However, even stopped down to f16 at any zoom setting between 13mm and 22mm, the corners are complete mush.

This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.

Nothing to get angry about - everyone is entitled to their opinions. Having only used Canon glass for as long as I can remember, I broke down and bought the new Sigma 35 1.4 and it is AWESOME on my 1Dx. Looing forward to seeing what they do next

Like others here, I have been a long time Canon lens shooter. The new Sigma 35mm is the first lens that had me thinking outside the Canon 'box'. I'm hoping they come to market soon with a new 24-70 f2.8 that is stabilized at a terrific price around $1K. The Sigma brand appears to have stepped up their offering significantly. It can only be seen as a good thing for us, the consumer. Instead of feeling like the only lens available to us is "L" glass, it's good to finally have an alternative that comes in significantly less.